Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rylander v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2003According to the allegations in King's original petition for judicial review, which we accept as true, see Rylander v. Caldwell , 23 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet.), King did in fact seek judicial review of the Commission's decision within fourteen days after it became final. 2003According to the allegations in King's original petition for judicial review, which we accept as true, see Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.), King did in fact seek judicial review of the Commission's decision within fourteen days after it became final. | 4 | 4 |
1986 Dodge 150 Pickup Vin 1B7FD14T1GS006316 v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Appellee’s Br. at 9 n. 1; 1986 Dodge 150 Pickup v. State, 129 S.W.3d 180, 184 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (“If a party proceeds to present evidence after that party has moved for a directed verdict, such party must reurge the motion for directed verdict at the close of the case, or any error in its denial is waived.”). 2021Appellee’s Br. at 9 n. 1; 1986 Dodge 150 Pickup v. State, 129 S.W.3d 180, 184 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (“If a party proceeds to present evidence after that party has moved for a directed verdict, such party must reurge the motion for directed verdict at the close of the case, or any error in its denial is waived.”). | 2 | 2 |
Averyt v. Grande, Inc.green2 sentences2016Mustang, in contrast, argues that the Combest Deed is more like the King rule as described in Averyt : “If, on the other hand, the deed reserves a fraction of the minerals under the land described, the deed reserves a fraction of the minerals under the entire physical tract, regardless of the part of the mineral estate actually conveyed.” Averyt, 717 S.W.2d at 893 (emphasis in original). 2016The supreme court explained that this language “places the reservation within the King rule.” Averyt, 717 S.W.2d at 894 . | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Speedgreen2 sentences2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. 2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. | 2 | 2 |
Wiggins v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Wiggins , 152 S.W.3d at 660 . 2006See Wiggins, 152 S.W.3d at 660 . | 2 | 2 |
Parkway Co. v. Woodruffgreen1 sentence2024See Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 857 S.W.2d 903, 919 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), aff’d as modified on other grounds, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. 2005) (recognizing six theories that may bind nonsignatories to arbitration agreements); BML Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 14 S.W.3d 395 , 400–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (considering whether various contract or agency principles 4 Although King asserts that HCP waived this acceptance-by-performance argument, a review of the record confirms that HCP’s pleadings and response to King’s motion for summary judgment were sufficient to fairly apprise King of this argument. | 1 | 1 |
Parkway Co. v. Woodruffgreen1 sentence2024See Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 857 S.W.2d 903, 919 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), aff’d as modified on other grounds, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2018“Under Franks, a defendant who makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was made in a warrant affidavit knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, may be entitled by the Fourth Amendment to a hearing, upon the defendant’s request.” Harris v. State, 227 S.W.3d 83, 85 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2018See id. art. 64.03(a)(1)(C), (2)(A). 2018See id. art. 64.03(a)(1)(A), (B). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.green2 sentences2016See Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, LLP, 22 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2000) (explaining that for an ambiguity to exist, both parties’ interpretations must be reasonable). 2016See Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, LLP, 22 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2000) (explaining that for an ambiguity to exist, both parties’ interpretations must be reasonable). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2015King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. 2015King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Firstmerit Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2013In re First Merit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Lynda Marino v. Charles Kinggreen1 sentence2011Because he did neither, “he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.” Id. ; see also Marino v. King , No. 10-09-00368-CV, 2010 WL 3434620, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Similar to Unifund , Marino was given notice of the late filing of her answers to the request for admissions in King’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Addingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santosky v. Kramergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pham v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bradle
green
2 sentences2021Allison, 156 S.W.2d at 528 ; Bradle, 83 S.W.3d at 927 . 2021Allison, 156 S.W.2d at 528 ; Bradle, 83 S.W.3d at 927 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2021Allison, 156 S.W.2d at 528 ; Bradle, 83 S.W.3d at 927 . 2021Allison, 156 S.W.2d at 528 ; Bradle, 83 S.W.3d at 927 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Ferguson v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). 2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Company
green
2 sentences2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). 2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Middleton v. Broussard
green
2 sentences2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. 2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Price v. Atlantic Refining Company
green
2 sentences2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). 2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Krauss v. Fry
green
2 sentences2015Cf. Krauss v. Fry, 209 La. 250 , 24 So.2d 464 (1946) ("land described" held ambiguous, parol evidence considered). 2015Cf. Krauss v. Fry, 209 La. 250 , 24 So.2d 464 (1946) ("land described" held ambiguous, parol evidence considered). | 2 | 1986–2015 |
McElmurray v. McElmurray
green
2 sentences2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. 2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co.
neutral
2 sentences2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). 2015For other states relying on the King rule, see Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 79 N.M. 629 , 447 P.2d 509 (1968); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 18 Ill.App.2d 194 , 151 N.E.2d 645 (1958); Ferguson v. Morgan, 220 Miss. 266 , 70 So.2d 866 (1954); Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 215 Ark. 842 , 223 S.W.2d 813 (1949). | 2 | 1986–2015 |
Gibson v. Turner
green
2 sentences2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. 2015Middleton, 504 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gibson v. Turner, 156 Tex. 289 , 294 S.W.2d 781 (1956); McElmurray v. McElmurray, 270 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Miller v. Speed, 259 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1952), no writ); R. | 2 | 1986–2015 |
BML Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Mayflower Transit, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. 2005) (recognizing six theories that may bind nonsignatories to arbitration agreements); BML Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 14 S.W.3d 395 , 400–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (considering whether various contract or agency principles 4 Although King asserts that HCP waived this acceptance-by-performance argument, a review of the record confirms that HCP’s pleadings and response to King’s motion for summary judgment were sufficient to fairly apprise King of this argument. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Briggs v. Toyota Manufacturing of Texas
green
1 sentence2024Briggs v. Toyota Mfg. of Texas, 337 S.W.3d 275 , 281–82 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.). (2) Analysis (a) Whether HCP raised a genuine issue of material fact in opposing King’s motion for summary judgment First, HCP argues King failed to conclusively disprove a valid agreement to inspect Cedar Beetle’s repair work for compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s specifications. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
1 sentence2018Finally, we address King’s claim that he was entitled to a Franks v. Delaware hearing. 438 U.S. at 155–56. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Longoria v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
green
1 sentence2017“When the trial court’s decision about whether absent persons should be joined as parties is guided by accepted legal rules and principles, we will not disturb that decision.” Id. at 180 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Clack v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2015Similarly, in Clack v. Garcia, 323 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1959, no writ), the grantor owned one-eighth of the surface and one-sixteenth of the minerals of a one hundred acre tract. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver
green
1 sentence2011Because he did neither, “he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.” Id. ; see also Marino v. King , No. 10-09-00368-CV, 2010 WL 3434620, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Similar to Unifund , Marino was given notice of the late filing of her answers to the request for admissions in King’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Salinas v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| King v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.